Then why do people (outside of being uninformed) want that type of insurance expanded?

Well, outside of the US, it's not called "insurance". So it just depends on the semantics. The insurance you are talking about is before birth insurance, such that everyone gets the same amount of care regardless of what their situation is. This leads to universal coverage.

In principle, however, universal coverage isn't an insurance scheme. The only reason the US is stuck in the insurance trap is because they want a free market solution. Insurance is the ugly child of free market medicine. Fewer people go for prevention, insurance attempts to not pay out, premiums are only semi-competitive, care is stratified, etc. Even when it is working the way it 'should', it fails.

So, people supporting the insurance scheme for medicine are simply working within a fundamentally flawed system... but they are limited by the politics and people's ideology as to what changes can be made.

Well, outside of the US, it's not called "insurance". So it just depends on the semantics. The insurance you are talking about is before birth insurance, such that everyone gets the same amount of care regardless of what their situation is. This leads to universal coverage.

In principle, however, universal coverage isn't an insurance scheme. The only reason the US is stuck in the insurance trap is because they want a free market solution. Insurance is the ugly child of free market medicine. Fewer people go for prevention, insurance attempts to not pay out, premiums are only semi-competitive, care is stratified, etc. Even when it is working the way it 'should', it fails.

So, people supporting the insurance scheme for medicine are simply working within a fundamentally flawed system... but they are limited by the politics and people's ideology as to what changes can be made.

I'm surprised that some people in this thread don't understand the difference between catastrophic medical insurance (you're injured playing a sport and require surgery) and routine medical insurance (prenatal care, prescription drug plans, etc). One distributes risk, which is the purpose of insurance. The other doesn't. It only adds to the cost.

That's not as clear cut as you want to make it sound. Where is, exactly, the probability cutoff? Is really a sports injury more frequent than a pregnancy?

Event related coverage? Ok. But my point is what about people with arthritis, lupus, anxiety disorder, or clinical depression? Those don't count as either regular doctor's office visits or "events" particularly where psychiatric is concerned. And what about people with cancer and AIDS? Those treatments are expensive.

I'll bet there would be government subsidies and/or charity organizations that would help such people out (people with chronic disorders). It would be analogous to soup kitchens, and food stamps for those who can't afford food. As for cancer, I'm pretty sure that would fall under catastrophy.

Another thing to remember is that the price of medications used to treat chronic conditions would likely decrease due to competition from generic drug companies and, of course, if large numbers of people can't afford the drugs, the company loses money.

Another thing to remember is that the price of medications used to treat chronic conditions will likely decrease due to competition from generic drug companies and, of course, if large numbers of people can't afford the drugs, the company loses money.

20 years, monopoly pricing... The company doesn't face competition and is not concerned about maximizing market share - the company doesn't lose money and people don't get the drugs.

I'll bet there would be government subsidies and/or charity organizations that would help such people out (people with chronic disorders). It would be analogous to soup kitchens, and food stamps for those who can't afford food. As for cancer, I'm pretty sure that would fall under catastrophy.

Another thing to remember is that the price of medications used to treat chronic conditions will likely decrease due to competition from generic drug companies and, of course, if large numbers of people can't afford the drugs, the company loses money.

Yes, indeed, government subsidies. I have no disagreement with that what-so-ever. But the person who originally posted this seems to be against government involvement, which I am personally not. Also, some drug companies make deals with psychiatric facilities so that patients requiring a certain med long term can get that med (and it has to be their name-brand, of course) more affordably based on income.

20 years, monopoly pricing... The company doesn't face competition and is not concerned about maximizing market share - the company doesn't lose money and people don't get the drugs.

That's more of an issue with patent law than anything else.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Yes, indeed, government subsidies. I have no disagreement with that what-so-ever. But the person who originally posted this seems to be against government involvement, which I am personally not. Also, some drug companies make deals with psychiatric facilities so that patients requiring a certain med long term can get that med (and it has to be their name-brand, of course) more affordably based on income.

I had decided to not respond to any more of your posts, but I'll make an exception here.

At no point did I ever make a statement regarding my opinion of government subsidies. I have tried to make a thread that is very limited in scope, and you keep trying to trash it with your gut feelings by trying to change the scope. It's annoying.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

That's not as clear cut as you want to make it sound. Where is, exactly, the probability cutoff? Is really a sports injury more frequent than a pregnancy?

Can you give me an example of something that's "in between"?

I would think that pregnancies are more common that sports injuries, but maybe that's not the case in Europe.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

I had decided to not respond to any more of your posts, but I'll make an exception here.

At no point did I ever make a statement regarding my opinion of government subsidies. I have tried to make a thread that is very limited in scope, and you keep trying to trash it with your gut feelings by trying to change the scope. It's annoying.

Actually, at one point you said that government involvement would make health insurance more complicated or inefficient than it already is (of course I'm paraphrasing).

Your post was not limited in scope. First it was misleading and confusing, then it become condecending (toward people who responded to your initial misleading, poor metaphor i.e. me and haphazard), and now it's completely unclear what you actually think. Your position to me is very unclear. You say that you want catastrophic insurance only, but the only way to do this is with more government involvement, which you said you don't want, which is impossible. It is impossible to interfere with free enterprise without changing laws and such.